Driving across an intersection the other day, I almost collided with a motorcycle deliveryman, who suddenly appeared from the side at high speed and passed only half a meter away from my car. Had I not braked immediately, I would have been hit on the spot. It was a good thing that it was I driving, and not an elderly or inexperienced driver, because we could have had a disaster on our hands.
The rise of food delivery platforms has brought convenience to our lives, but it has also made the dangers of rushing a daily part of urban traffic. Many of us have witnessed delivery drivers overtaking, running red lights and speeding through corners, which reflect the structural risks stimulated by delivery platforms.
When the amount of orders is closely linked to earnings, delivery drivers are under time pressure, which is a high-risk factor for traffic accidents.
National Audit Office data showed that in 2021, more than 150,000 delivery drivers across the country were involved in 11,799 traffic accidents.
Statistics released by the Taipei Department of Transportation showed that the number of accidents involving delivery platform scooters reached 1,974 cases in 2022 and 1,488 cases in 2023, an average of four to six per day, most of which result in casualties. They accounted for about 4 percent to 5 percent of all motorcycle accidents, the highest among all scooter drivers’ occupations.
These data show that traffic risks arising from delivery drivers’ rushing have become a public safety issue that needs to be tackled urgently.
First, we must bolster traffic safety education for delivery drivers to enhance road-safety awareness. Delivery platforms should implement mandatory training on regulations, using case studies to teach risks.
Second, we must establish a fair dispatching mechanism: Dispatch orders based on the region and route, so as to reduce the incentive to rush to get them done quickly, which is a motivation for risky driving.
Third, we must introduce speed monitoring: Encourage the installation of speed control devices, include driving behavior in the platform scoring, and restrict order acceptance when necessary.
Fourth, we must strengthen post-accident handling: If a delivery driver causes an accident due to road rule violations, aside from being punished according to law, traffic training should be made compulsory to avoid them making the same mistake again.
This is not about opposing delivery drivers, but about creating a social environment that protects workers’ rights and interests while taking into account the safety of road users.
The hard work of delivery drivers deserves respect, but it should never come at the expense of the risks to others.
Yeh Cheng-hsing is a civil servant section chief.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS